Category Archives: Let’s just call this one a “Deep Thinker”

Sometimes I like to play Devil’s Advocate

Posted on by
Reply

Sometimes I like to play Devil’s Advocate. And sometimes I like to throw the words of well-respected “peace practitioners” back in their faces – especially when they are hypocrites.

I’m not going to sit back and be brain-washed. I’m also not going to pretend that their very prejudiced teachings are peaceful and tolerant.

I may not be PRO-religion myself – but I will not listen to them preach about the inferiority of those who are religious. Why am I the only person in my classes who seems to understand that I’m in a very prejudiced and racist course? I DON’T EVEN WANT TO STUDY PEACE and I can see that they are super hypocrites. So why, why, why can’t these students – who claim they are passionate about peace … WHY CAN’T THEY SEE IT?


Second of Five Reflections

We discussed the three types of violence (e.g. structural, cultural, and direct) in class this week. I would like to return to the example in my first reflection as the foundation for this entry. With the help of my readings and the discussions in class, I have been able to look at the previous experience in more depth and with a different light.

Today I wish not to dwell on the conflicts my experience presented, but on how the lack of protection for religious privacy can lead to religious discrimination and prejudice which is a form (according to definitions by Galtung and classroom discussions) of cultural violence. I also believe that the way in which religion is discussed and criticized by Galtung breeds discrimination and ironically encourages exactly that which he wishes to abolish.

As the world becomes increasingly more educated and the horrors which religions have inspired are brought to light, it is impossible to dismiss the cloud of reasonable doubt hovering around the likelihood that organized religion was intended to be more than merely an institution of control, fear and war. Put more simply, I understand the arguments that organized religion is corrupt.

It becomes exceedingly more difficult to find an academic who carries a firm belief in a religion. How can you dismiss the repeated violence? How can you dismiss the horrors? The attempts at Genocide? The millions of deaths in the name of a Higher Power? All caused by religion!

An example of how pervasive the attitude that religion is wrong within the world of academia is the religion class I attended. There were only two students in the class who professed to have any belief in religion or in a God. Each and every other student took the time to not only announce their superiority in intelligence for rejecting religion (and I make this as a statement of fact) but made a point to explain that they achieved this “new intellectual plane” through personal growth and knowledge (signaling that those who do not share their views are not as advanced or informed.) One girl even stated that she feels “sorry for Christians because they are so in the dark.” Another explained during the break that if you are intelligent and logical, at all, that you MUST discount religions and see them for what they “really” are.

I have no major qualms with these opinions. I personally have doubts with regard to the legitimacy of organized religions myself. The new trend in developed countries is to attach oneself to Atheism or Agnosticism. But for the sake of playing the devil’s advocate and in light of my new understanding of cultural violence, I would like to argue that this belief system (like any belief system can) has created a new culture, a very limited, and incredibly prejudiced culture – which by definition can cause cultural violence.

The deep-rooted yet unstated belief in the superiority and advancement of those who can see religion without rose-colored glasses inherently fosters the belief that those who choose to follow a religion are in the dark, not as intelligent, and/or inferior. A great portion of the academic world, in general terms and by nature, breeds a culture of contempt for religion. This breeds discrimination. But instead of discriminating based on religion (which is arguably one of the reasons religions are corrupt) they discriminate based on religion under the guise of “intellectual advancement.” You are either agnostic or atheist or you are not smart.

Galtung clearly indicates that religion is a form of cultural violence. It’s his first example in our readings. He makes valid and well-founded arguments about how religions create rationalizations for inequality, racism, prejudices and discrimination.

He does not offer religion any credit for their core belief systems or for their foundation of culture apart from their corrupt leaders. There is no doubt that Galtung rejects organized religion nor is there doubt that he wishes to expose religion as an institution that should be abolished in order to establish positive peace.

By creating this definition of religion, Galtung sets up his own class system. Those who follow a religion vs. those who see it as a corrupt institution needing to be abolished. I think he explains (albeit unintentionally) the danger of this better than I could.

“The lines may no longer be drawn between God, the Chosen, the Unchosen, and Satan. Modernity would reject God and Satan but might demand a distinction between Chosen and Unchosen; let us call them Self and Other.
…A steep gradient is then constructed, inflating, even exalting, the value of Self; deflating, even debasing, the value of Other. At that point, structural violence can start operating. ”

Galtung claims that “modernity” equals rejecting God and Satan. So those who DO believe in God and Satan have not reached the same level of intellectualization. The Chosen now become those who are atheist and agnostic, those who are intellectually advanced enough to see religion as corrupt. The Chosen become the ones who have grown in wisdom enough to be able to change the world. The “other” or “unchosen” become those who are religious. Those who are not as advanced (according to his own definition) and those who (as long as they hold onto their religious beliefs) do not carry the power to create positive peace.

Galtung himself cautions about the dangers of firmly held beliefs of “self” and “other” which I argue can be applied to his disdain for religion. “…And certain tenets of belief in modernization, development, progress are seen as apodictic; not to believe in them reflects badly on the non-believer, not on the belief.” To believe in religion, according to the teachings of Galtung, can be seen as not believing in modernization and this, he admits, (within the structure of cultural violence) can reflect badly on the non-believer.

Cultural
violence can absolutely be fueled by religion. Creating a “superior” culture of people who reject religion can also fuel cultural violence. And a belief system that defines Self (e.g. agnostic) as superior to Other (e.g. religious) fosters inequality which can result not only in cultural but also in structural violence. This anti-religion culture, which often falls under the sheltering arm of academia, provides rationalizations for this Self vs. Other, anti-religion belief system.

Galtung, in describing exactly what is wrong with religion and ideologies, explains perfectly what he is doing himself: fostering, rationalizing and excusing a form of cultural violence.

I WAS discriminated against during the classroom break after announcing my religious orientation. Students DID say I was a member of a “crazy sect” and whispered about it in front of my face. I was immediately rejected for my belief. The culture of anti-religion that Galtung encourages may be just as dangerous as the culture of religion which he abhors.

Why my mom should be proud and my assignment

Posted on by
Reply

My mom should be proud of me because:

  • Even though this assignment SHOULD have been done 3 weeks ago and is therefore a slight procrastination, I did end up finishing it 2 weeks before the ACTUAL due date.
  • This assignment was not written at 3:00 in the morning.
  • I typed it all by myself! ;)

And there you have it. 3 reasons why my mom not only should but WILL be proud of me.

Here it is – just as proof. My favorite part is that even though YOU all know that I DID tell the truth – my teacher won’t know because I didn’t tell him and he wasn’t there! I hope the suspense and cliff-hanger ending drive him nuts. ;)

It’s 500 words – feel free to not read it. :) Unless of course you can claim to be Daisy’s Mom – then you have to read it.

First of Five Reflections

During the first day of my Religion Class, the teacher made what the United States would consider a major violation in students’ rights as well as ethical classroom standards. Not knowing if the Australian Government affords its citizens and students the same rights and privileges to which I have grown accustomed, I did not speak out in protest. However, I was absolutely perplexed about how to react! So while the class went around, as instructed by the teacher, and declared their current religious orientation (or lack thereof) and what religious orientation they had while young, I had to make a choice. Do I answer the question honestly? Do I play it safe and lie? Or do I refuse to answer the question?

I chose this personal experience because it can be deconstructed with the help of this week’s reading to show many levels and types of conflict.

Conflicts

I had specific expectations for my teacher (i.e. not violating what I consider my right to privacy and protection from prejudice) yet at the same time I understood that in my role as student I would be expected by the class as well as the teacher to do as she asked. Refusing to answer the question could present role conflict as well as interpersonal conflict between the teacher and me. My choice could also present an intra-group conflict if the students divided lines about whether it was ethical for our teacher to ask us to disclose our religious orientation.

I felt the tension of world-view conflict as I considered if my expectations were a result of my nationality. A common fault of Americans is to expect the world to run by their rules. Was my expectation of privacy and protection from prejudice an American rule? Would it really be right for me to demand rights afforded to me by my government when not currently in my home country? And if this was indeed a case of differing world-views, structural conflict comes into play because the system, having been set by the University of Sydney, left me no recourse to demand revision or change to what I consider unethical.

The greatest conflict for me was related to values. I value being an open-minded student who attempts to trust (though critically) the methods of my teachers. I value my right to privacy. I value being free from prejudice. I value being honest. I value standing up for what I believe.

I had three choices. Tell the truth, lie, or refuse to answer the question. Here is how each option would have encroached upon my values.

Tell the Truth – If I told the truth I would subject myself to discrimination. I would also lose my right to privacy with regard to my religion. In addition, by telling the truth I would be unable to stand up for my belief in the right to privacy.
Lie – Lying is against my core set of values. However, lying would secure that I remain free from religious prejudices and it would respect my right to privacy.
Refuse to answer the question – I would still subject myself to discrimination (though instead of being of a religious nature it would be as a result of nationality.) I would not be able to claim that I made an effort to give my teacher the benefit of the doubt, nor would I be remaining open-minded with regard to the new culture in which I live. This would result in a personal judgment against myself for being close-minded.

All three presented extreme intrapersonal conflict. There was no way to satisfy all of my values.

Hate is wrong – all around. EXCEPT it’s ok to hate the United States.

Posted on by
Reply

I don’t think the USA is perfect. I understand there are logical criticisms of the way our country is run. And if someone has a problem with America – ok. You probably have good reasons.

That’s not what this is about. This post is because I’m sick of people preaching tolerance for everyone EXCEPT Americans. If you preach hate or intolerance in any form – even if it’s only for anglo-America – you are NOT PREACHING PEACE. Stop pretending to be peaceful and tolerant unless you are ready to be tolerant to EVERYONE, including Americans.

Today an Australian girl in one of my classes said, “I feel bad that cultural sensitivity in this country covers everyone but Americans.”

I agree.

The fact of the matter is that the world, in general, preaches tolerance for everyone but Americans. The Peace Studies textbook I’m reading today, distributed by the lovely University of Sydney, clearly states that the world’s problems are the fault of the U.S. And the only way to make the world a better place is to boycott the U.S. Empire.

Johan Galtung a leading peace researcher says in my textbook, “Most of the sources of violence in the twenty-first century are globalized, privatized, monetized capitalism; the US empire expanding that system also by military means including the encircling of Russia-China-India (40 percent of humanity); the contradiction between 2,000 nations, 200 states and 20 nation-states basically with one nation… Peaceful solutions include better distribution/alternative economic systems, boycott of the US empire…“

Clever wording Johan. The 21st Century began only 8 years ago. But “century” makes it sound like the U.S. has been the problem for AGES. And did you forget about the RELIGIOUS war over Palestine? That’s been in the 21st Century too. And it’s not because of the U.S. or because of capitalism.

Oh and hey Johan – why didn’t you mention the 20th century? Oh that’s right … because WWI, WWII, the religious wars over Palestine, the Tutsi Genocide in Africa… etc. you can’t blame those on the U.S.

Did you know that NONE of the armaments for that horrendous Tutsi slaughter in Africa were supplied by the U.S. No … they were actually all supplied by the European States that criticize the U.S. for the amount of weapons the U.S. has. You see, it’s not ok for the U.S. to have weapons but it IS ok for THEM (the people who criticize) to make money selling weapons. I think if you’re so anti-weapons that you probably shouldn’t make them yourself.

But it’s all good. The world and the violence in the world can all be blamed on us. There would be no war – no conflict – no suffering – if everyone in the world could hate the U.S. together.

Forget about hating someone over a difference in religion. Forget about hating someone over the color of their skin. You only need to hate someone if they come from Anglo-America. It’s that simple.

And as far as the problems in America – let’s not hold any other nation accountable for similar problems. Americans – who are not humans and don’t deserve the basic Human Rights of respect and dignity – are the only ones who should be criticized for their mistakes. Because like Johan said – it’s the whole world against one and that’s the PEACEFUL solution.

Match to the Death: Obsession vs. Pride

Posted on by
Reply

What happens when an obsession encroaches on your pride? Which one should win? My instinct would be to cheer “GO PRIDE!!! You can do it!! Take that obsession down!!!”

But … what if part of your obsession is vanity related health related and your vanity health can be chalked up as part of your pride? hmm …

My Ultimate BFF Crysta tells me I should not be so obsessed with weight. For the most part I agree – I should worry more about inches, the mirror and the way I feel. But weight is a much faster and easier indication of where I’m at than looking in the mirror or measuring around the widest part of my booty everyday. A 4 lb gain on the scale may have been distributed so evenly over my body that no mirrors or measuring tapes would alert me.

When I moved to Australia I had to make a choice. Take out a couple pair of shoes and take my LB scale or leave the scale at home. I left the scale at home and only brought a measuring tape. I decided it was time to let go of my weight obsession.

But now I find myself using my measuring tape to ultimate extremes. So why don’t I just go buy a scale? Well because the PLAN was to kick my weight obsession and buying a scale would be giving in (not to mention I’d have to convert kg to lbs with an aussie scale.) Oh – decisions, decisions, decisions.

Is it REALLY that bad to be obsessed with weight? I only used to weigh myself twice a day – once in the morning – once in the evening…

Is there a choice between good and evil?

Posted on by
Reply

Have you ever read about the Stanford Prison Experiment? I learned about it years ago when I studied Psychology at the University of Utah and then it was mentioned again yesterday at school.

Here is the quick overview as told by the lead Psychologist Philip Zimbardo.

What happens when you put good people in an evil place? Does humanity win over evil, or does evil triumph? These are some of the questions we posed in this dramatic simulation of prison life conducted in the summer of 1971 at Stanford University.

How we went about testing these questions and what we found may astound you. Our planned two-week investigation into the psychology of prison life had to be ended prematurely after only six days because of what the situation was doing to the college students who participated. In only a few days, our guards became sadistic and our prisoners became depressed and showed signs of extreme stress. Please join me on a slide tour describing this experiment and uncovering what it tells us about the nature of human nature.

To give a tiny bit more detail … this Zimbardo guy took 24 Stanford students (who had all been tested to be perfectly normal and mentally healthy) and made 12 of them guards and 12 of them prisoners. No instructions were given to any of them except “You are a guard” or “You are a prisoner.” Within days the guards were making the prisoners do perverse things and human rights were being violated. Zimbardo (who only cared about the experiment) only pulled the plug because his WIFE complained that they were becoming monsters (Zimbardo included.)

Ok so that’s the background. It’s a fascinating story in that 12 seemingly normal people became evil when presented with the opportunity. And what’s more interesting is the way the story is related and pitched over and over and over and over …

The line “uncovering what it tells us about the nature of human nature” is generally how it is discussed and presented. We are supposed to learn that the nature of human nature is that normal healthy people become evil when put in evil situations. Zimbardo calls this the “Lucifer Effect.”

Even my teacher at school only discussed this study to demonstrate that normal people DO turn evil with relatively no pushing. I acknowledge this with regret but would like to make a point that everyone seems to be missing.

THERE IS A CHOICE!

The entire class accepted what the teacher was saying. Accepted it as fact that no one would behave differently in that situation. They all accepted that they too would be abusive. I, on the other hand, am not so willing to accept this and I think it is extremely wrong to take away personal accountability. If we are taught that in stressful situations it’s human nature to become evil … well … that’s like a free pass to give in to the dark side.

Where is the personal accountability? Where is the ownership? Why are excuses being made for human rights violations?

I am not so self-righteous to assert that I personally would have been any different. Having never been in a position like that – I cannot make that claim. I don’t think anyone REALLY knows what they would do unless actually confronted with the choice – but again – there is that key word again – CHOICE.

I hope that I would stand up for what I believe. I hope that I never dehumanize others. And I hope that I remember it’s my choice.

I brought this up in class. I suggested that removing personal responsibility for one’s actions by blaming the men’s transformations entirely on situational factors does not allow for freedom of will. We all have the freedom to choose how we behave – even when under extreme situations. And we all CAN choose to overcome temptation and treat others with the respect they deserve as human beings.

Though a bit surprised by my argument – my teacher could not refute it. He paused for a moment and then agreed. After which we discussed in class some of the people in history who HAVE chosen the right course even when it would have been much easier not to …

There is a choice between good and evil. Sometimes the line may become a little fuzzy – and the area may be a little gray – but there is a choice.

I hope we all remember that.